Our Correspondent / NEW DELHI
The Supreme Court today decided to hear the civil appeals filed by various parties challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute on February 8 next year.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer also asked the Advocates on Record of appeals to ensure that all the requisite documents are translated, filed and numbered before the apex court Registry.
A total of 13 appeals are lined up for hearing against the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits. The High Court had then ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre area at Ayodhya among the parties the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla.
Recently a group of civil rights activists also moved the apex court seeking intervention in the Ayodhya dispute and urged it to consider the issue saying it is not just a dispute over property but has several other aspects which would have far-reaching effects on the secular fabric of the country.
Messr Rajeev Dhavan and Kapil Sibal, appearing for appellants, requested to refer the case to a constitution bench.
FOLLOW INDIAN AWAAZ ON TWITTER
Today’s Muslim parties demand —
1. Matter be referred to a Constitution bench as this is an important matter have wide ramifications.
2. Hearing should be postponed till July 2019. This is not the appropriate time for hearing.
Kapil Sibal alleged — This case was lying in SC since long. Why it has been taken for hearing now. Why there is urgency in winding up the matter in few months. This was in the election manifesto that Ram Temple will be build before 2019 by legal means. Therefore Subramanian Swamy who is not even party to the case request you to do urgent hearing. He then writes the PM that there should be urgent hearing. And SC starts hearing it. And SC is showing undue haste in deciding the case. This should not happen.
Harish Salve on behalf of Hindu side said it is just another case and should be decided by three judges. No need to send to Constitution bench. It was pending for seven years so what’s wrong if SC wants to decide it urgently.
Hearing adjourned till Feb 8. SC says the issue of sending the matter to Constitution bench may be discussed during the course of hearing.
